Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by samldev 653 days ago
In this scenario you’d also have to pay for bandwidth since that’s the variable cost here. The more views you get, the more you pay. And obviously you wouldn’t get any money from YouTube for views since they aren’t making money from your videos.

Genuinely curious, would you still go for it?
1 comments
movedx 653 days ago
> In this scenario you’d also have to pay for bandwidth since that’s the variable cost here.

For Google? You think Google get a monthly bill for their bandwidth?

link
simfree 653 days ago
Most of Google, AWS and ilks traffic is moved over settlement free peering and fixed cost infrastructure: https://www.lightreading.com/cable-technology/level-3-seals-...

Whether 100TB or 1500TB of data are delivered to one ISP at one peering point in a given month has minimal effect, that 10Gbps, 100Gbps or larger port is a fixed cost that will exist regardless of traffic.

link
movedx 652 days ago
Precisely. I used to rent dedicated servers in the early 2000s that gave me such options.
link